Seema Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

It is, therefore, humbly prayed that your Lordship may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this Writ Petition and by an appropriate writ, order

or direction:-

I. By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 12.06.2020 passed by the respondents to be quashed and set aside.

Consequently the respondent be directed to revive the order dated 18.05.2020. The petitioner be allowed to continue as Add. Charge of Post Chief

vayavasthapak, at Bhawani Mandi Office with all consequential benefits with direction to respondents to release entire due salary of petitioner of

months of Nov., 2019. II. Any other appropriate order, which may be found just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, be passed in

favour of the petitioner.

III. Cost of writ petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.

Admittedly, the petitioner who is working on the post of Inspector in the respondent-department was transferred from Jhalawar to Bhawani Mandi

vide order dated 18.05.2020 and she was given the additional charge of Chief Manager Bhawani Mandi Kray-Vikray Sahakari Samiti Limited. The

respondents vide order dated 12.06.2020 have given the additional charge of Chief Manager Bhawani Mandi Kray-Vikray Sahakari Samiti Limited to

respondent no.5 (Sh. Shivcharan Vijay).

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said charge has been taken from the petitioner on the ground of political rivalry.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

The petitioner who is a government employee cannot claim to work at a particular place as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter

of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shri Bhagwan & Ors. reported in (2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 574, where in para 5 it has

been held as under:-

On a careful consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and the relevant rules to which our attention has been invited to,

we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the impugned orders of transfer. It is by now well-settled and often

reiterated by this Court that no Government servant or employee of public Undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular

place since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident,

but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an

outcome of malafide exercise of power or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals

cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they are the Appellate Authorities substituting their own decision for that of the

Management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. On the facts and circumstances of

the cases before us, we are also unable to agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that Rule 4.1.1 of the Seniority Rules interdicts any

transfer of the employees from one Office or Project or Unit to any one of the other so long as the seniority of such an employee is protected based

on the length of service with reference to the date of promotion of appointment to the grade concerned irrespective of the date of transfer. We also

consider it to be a mere submission in vain, the one urged on the basis of alleged adverse consequences detrimental to their seniority resulting from

such transfer. In the facts of the present cases, at any rate, no such result is bound to occur since the project undertaken to which the respondents

have been transferred is itself a new one and, therefore, we seen no rhyme or reason in the alleged grievance.

This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the petitioner has no right to continue at a particular place;

secondly, the petitioner has levelled  the allegation of political rivalry but no person has been impleaded by her as party respondent in this writ

petition.

In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands dismissed.